[teejers1]

Note that if the wisdom of the crowds method had been employed, we would have started a guy who couldn't even hack it at Columbia back in 2012.

WRT play calling, I agree that the Sanders wildcat set of plays did not serve us well.  As the saying goes "you have one job".  The good news is that the very next opportunity (first and goal from the five), Shaw dialed the jump ball pass to Tremayne, and the time after that (also a first and goal from the five), Shaw ran the Spider-2-y-banana play to Symonds off a play action pass.

For better or worse, I doubt that will be the last time we will ever see the Sanders play, because Shaw has historically liked the wildcat.  Then again, the last time someone did an analysis on its efficacy, I think they found that it gained more yards than conventional running plays, even though "everyone knows what is coming".  But, of course, that was with a different runner receiving the direct snap.  And maybe one of these days, Shaw will call a pass out of it.

BC

My critique on that lost TD opportunity was the entire sequence, more so than the use of the telegraphed play twice in a row.  I would have spread the field in a regular set (i.e., non-bunch/heavy formation, non Wildcat) and run the ball twice wherever coach wanted to attack.  Then see where you are.  I think we probably score.  Regardless, if it's 3rd and 1 or closer, then sure, Wildcat is as good as any play at that point; if third and 5 you pass.  And then on fourth down, see where you are.  Again, this is all fluid based on what is happening as it unfolds.

But when you had what you had after 3 plays - fourth and still 2+ (after 3 futile running plays) - then kick the FG.  Or if you insist on going for it, don't make it a fourth futile running play.

I just had feeling coach was going to go for it based on his "rule" that 4th and 4 or anything closer and we're going for the TD.  That is too simplistic a mindset.  And running up the gut after you had been stuffed 3 times previously seemed particularly misguided and brought back memories of that ND goal line stand which Stanford made much easier by running exact same futile heavy play four times in a row.  This wasn't that bad, but you get the idea.  BTW, somebody in the live "Vandy game thread" said that Stanford at some point has to have Sanders pass out of that formation.  I agree 100%.  And maybe have Sanders wildcat on first down; regular run on second down; and then Sanders go back out in Wildcat and call the pass.  I don't know, there were lots of things that struck me as "better" than what we saw - and this was said real-time (including "kick the field goal, coach!"), and not with 20/20 hindsight.

So from my sideline perspective, the whole series was clustered.  This is the kind of micromanaging critiques that Lex hates, but is it really micromanaging to say "Hey, I don't think it's wise to run a fourth similar play when the previous ones had been stoned inside the 5?"  IDK, seems pretty basic to me.

[teejers1]

Note that if the wisdom of the crowds method had been employed, we would have started a guy who couldn't even hack it at Columbia back in 2012.

WRT play calling, I agree that the Sanders wildcat set of plays did not serve us well.  As the saying goes "you have one job".  The good news is that the very next opportunity (first and goal from the five), Shaw dialed the jump ball pass to Tremayne, and the time after that (also a first and goal from the five), Shaw ran the Spider-2-y-banana play to Symonds off a play action pass.

For better or worse, I doubt that will be the last time we will ever see the Sanders play, because Shaw has historically liked the wildcat.  Then again, the last time someone did an analysis on its efficacy, I think they found that it gained more yards than conventional running plays, even though "everyone knows what is coming".  But, of course, that was with a different runner receiving the direct snap.  And maybe one of these days, Shaw will call a pass out of it.

BC

My critique on that lost TD opportunity was the entire sequence, more so than the use of the telegraphed play twice in a row.  I would have spread the field in a regular set (i.e., non-bunch/heavy formation, non Wildcat) and run the ball twice wherever coach wanted to attack.  Then see where you are.  I think we probably score.  Regardless, if it's 3rd and 1 or closer, then sure, Wildcat is as good as any play at that point; if third and 5 you pass.  And then on fourth down, see where you are.  Again, this is all fluid based on what is happening as it unfolds.

But when you had what you had after 3 plays - fourth and still 2+ (after 3 futile running plays) - then kick the FG.  Or if you insist on going for it, don't make it a fourth futile running play.

I just had feeling coach was going to go for it based on his "rule" that 4th and 4 or anything closer and we're going for the TD.  That is too simplistic a mindset.  And running up the gut after you had been stuffed 3 times previously seemed particularly misguided and brought back memories of that ND goal line stand which Stanford made much easier by running exact same futile heavy play four times in a row.  This wasn't that bad, but you get the idea.  BTW, somebody in the live "Vandy game thread" said that Stanford at some point has to have Sanders pass out of that formation.  I agree 100%.  And maybe have Sanders wildcat on first down; regular run on second down; and then Sanders go back out in Wildcat and call the pass.  I don't know, there were lots of things that struck me as "better" than what we saw - and this was said real-time (including "kick the field goal, coach!"), and not with 20/20 hindsight.

So from my sideline perspective, the whole series was clustered.  This is the kind of micromanaging critiques that Lex hates, but is it really micromanaging to say "Hey, I don't think it's wise to run a fourth similar play when the previous ones had been stoned inside the 5?"  IDK, seems pretty basic to me.